As has been previously stated, in theory, the best possible government for any human society is a benevolent, enlightened dictatorship. The reason it doesn't work that way though is because humans are, to oversimplify it, stupid. Things start out with good intentions, then they change a little, then a lot, then some more, and suddenly it's Stop questioning, work harder, worship King-Emperor Ganzulu I, blessed by the almighty! History is basically one long list of this happening time after time, with brief intermissions of King Good Guy being all chill and kind until his sadistic half-brother murders him with snake venom and usurps his throne, dedicating the rest of his life to messing with the peasants and starting wars in the eternal quest to attain the title of 'History's greatest douche'.

No one in their right minds wants to revert back to absolute monarchy (Despite how easy it is sometimes to wonder if it's actually possible for them to do a worse job than the current, elected incumbent of the boss-chair), and yet, having a figurehead monarch like we do here in the UK, is perfectly fine, better than fine, and it riles and saddens me when people won't see reason on this matter.

It has become terribly unfashionable to retain elements of our past and culture here in England (And note that I say England, not Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland; their historical and cultural stock has never been worth more), and it's a crying shame. My country has a rich history, filled with all manner of awesome, stupid and downright craziness, some of which even George R.R Martin couldn't make up, and we get nailed for it, even to this day. The Queen, and indeed our monarchy as a whole, are our figureheads; a rallying point, if you will. Even in the 1940's, still within living memory of some who yet breathe, the backbone of our country's morale consisted of two men: Churchill and the King. I'm asking you to think about this for a moment. Look at the United States. For all its wrongs and weirdness that people love to point out, it's probably the most patriotic western nation on the planet. They've mostly stayed true to what they created themselves from, their roots, their (Fabulously well written) constitution, and if there ever comes a day when the skies darken over North America and the proverbial shit hits the fan, they will have that as their rallying point, and the importance of that should not be underestimated. A sense of identity, of belonging, something or someone to rally behind in times of woe is required by all of us in the dark times, times which we on these forums have had the good fortune to never know. We can and should wish and eternally strive for a world where evil and bad people never darken our doorsteps, but believing we are already there because we have been raised in relative safety is naïve to the extreme.

Some people rant about our Queen and monarchy with such venom, you wonder if they themselves have been personally wronged by her. They shout and rant and stamp their feet, demanding the creation of a British republic, that they be torn from their ivory towers and shown how us poor, downtrodden peasants live. And yet, when you debate this topic with them, the argument is often predictable.

"It's wrong, they shouldn't have power!"
"They don't"
"It's wrong, we shouldn't lose money by paying them to sit there and be rich for nothing!"
"We don't, we make several times more from them existing than they cost us"
".........Well it's just wrong, f**k you, right wing filth"
"Thank you"Almost every time.

If anyone here should have any questions regarding the above argument, I could go into detail but this is already turning out to be something of an essay, so I shall direct you to this short video which puts it all on the table in a rather neat fashion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

When it comes to us trying to forge our countries into something better; creating and polishing our systems of government into something just a little more ideal, there can be nothing more important than reminders of the past, surely? If you stand up right now, then try to think of the most random, idiotic thing your brain is capable of telling your body to do, someone at some point has done the exact same thing. Worse, probably, and it's the same when it comes to governance. The wars we're bogged down in, the wars and fires still being fuelled, the bigotry that still pervades even the most 'modern' of nations, the relentless intolerance, sexism, crime, mind numbing naiveté and selfishness from those we push to the top of the pyramid, supposedly the best and brightest of us all. It continues in a circle, ad infinitum. And so we fumble and we blame, we point fingers at the most visible vestiges of our questionable pasts, and we tear it to pieces. The Russians did so with their monarchy, and ushered in nearly a century of communism. The French did it with theirs, only to put an emperor on the throne a few years later. It is a fact that destruction can often lead to new life, but sometimes... sometimes it just leads to the loss of something important which can never be regained.
You may destroy the titles of king and noble, but kings and nobles there will always be.

Why are you such a hypocrite? You should take your own advice and be quiet if you cannot prove a point you are trying to make.

I'm not.

1. I have given a reason why we should want a monarchy (just like in your 'discussions'- where I show, beyond a doubt, that you are wrong), only that no one answers to anything that I have said, kind of like that our little argument where I explain to you with almost godly patience why you are wrong on this count and on that count, only you decide to answer in non-sequiturs and repeat the same question over and over. This particular quality of yours has been observe not just by myself, but by two other people, Mr CLarose and Mr Spazticus. Indeed, you two also seem to share a love of spamming people's in-boxes, which, in addition to your stupidities, amplifies your natural unpleasantness. Therefore, my own advice applies to me.

2. Your post is not intended to stimulate the discussion herein, and is only writ so as to defame and attack me to satisfy your petty desire for vengeance. In fact, it is so irrelevant, I may as well report it, were not for the fact that I don't particularly care.

The main female character in V for Vendetta. Played by Natalie Portman in the film telling of the story. She gets saved by V and eventually becomes his successor to turn the fascist Britain into an anarchy.

The main female character in V for Vendetta. Played by Natalie Portman in the film telling of the story. She gets saved by V and eventually becomes his successor to turn the fascist Britain into an anarchy.

You did not answer my questions, so therefore you did not prove your point and did not contribute to the discussion in a reasonable manner. You and your little troll buddies are completely disregarding the standards that you set.

At last, you have taken to try and graft your own image onto mine.

First, you do not hide the fact that the only reason why you are responding to me at all is for some act of petty vengance, wherein you like to catch me in the act of hypocrisy, that is, the popular, rather than actual definition of it- to commend one action over another, while living contrary to it.

That of course is not true, as in the first post, I have written out the reasons why we should have a monarchy, only to be responded with a post telling me that 'I'm an idiot', and then linking it to some youtube video that I can't be arsed to care about.

You then jumped in to call me a hypocrite when I pointed out that there is nothing by way of argument in that post, and then I have responded to that, and finally your responded with this.

Of course, you are just angry that I have proven you wrong over and over again, that you are reduced to a stuttering infant repeating irrelevant questions when you know that you have been shown wrong, and it is only pride the moves you to write this irrelevant bit of virtuperation and slander.

Since I have actually carefully argued for my points, rather than just blurt out untenable statesments, which is yours (and Vega's) preferred mode of argument, and as I back up my assertion with fact, you, irrational as you are, make unfounded statesments and you treat scepticism of your outrageous statesments as needful of proof. This only demonstrate your ignorance, and why no one needs to take you seriously, and why you should shut up, else think before your speak- Scepticism is the default position until something can be proved, scepticism of the soul and God, for example (as you, I assume, are some sort of Atheists), is the natural position to adopt until there is overwhelming proof that God and Soul does exist.

Or the fact that, to every answer, you respond with irrelevant questions and non-sequiturs- you even, at one point, gladly admit to being a troll. For example, for a lenghty explaination of why you are wrong, lucidly and clearly explicated, you simply respond, instead of a thoughtful response, with a simple 'Why?', which, I assume, is the only Interrogative word you know, and that, were you aware of the existence of 'what', 'when', 'where', 'how', 'who', 'whither' and 'whether', each one would be equally fitting for your mode of discourse- any discussion, whether an explanation of Justice and Ethics, to a measurement of the distance between Los Angeles and New York, would have engendered the question 'why?', and it is probably because you want to perpetuate a dead discussion, a discussion where you are proven wrong over and over again.

You are tiresome, you put no effort in reading, and even less in composing, and you would do well to simply shut up, and spare us of your stupidity and thougthlessness.

Lengthy it may be, it necessary to flay you here as an example to other fools out there, that they may profit from your example and think.

No Place so Sacred from such fools is barr'd,
Nor is Paul's Church more safe than Paul's Church-yard:
Nay, fly to Altars; there they'll talk you dead;
For fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
-An Essay on Criticism (modified), A. Pope

The main female character in V for Vendetta. Played by Natalie Portman in the film telling of the story. She gets saved by V and eventually becomes his successor to turn the fascist Britain into an anarchy.

What does anarchy mean to you?

Anarchy to me is the state of a society being without a governing body. There are no laws and everyone is equal to everyone else. The idea is sort of like what Lordseth has been saying, people caring and understanding each other and working together to solve the problems of that society. While it's wonderful as an idea the human condition prevents this from ever being a reliable way to run a country or a group of people. The fact is as humans we are jealous, envious, and mainly self-centered beings. SO the peaceful anarchtic society can't happen due to the few people who realize that they can take whatever they want whenever they want and the only people who can stop them are the ones who'd rather live in peace than fight back.

"In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair!"

I plan on ruling from the Space Needle in Seattle, where I can watch my subjects grovel before me. When this world is completely mine, we will conquer space.

I like your style, You start from the west coast, I'll start from the east coast, We'll mash armies in the middle.